This was scanned at a pro lab (film scanner) at 6MB Tiff's. Not good enough. I had to put in a lot of work (hours for each shot) to make them look like this - and still grainy - before publishing.
If you want to save time and money - film and scanners is not the way to go. Believe me! Unless you have a lot of time on your hands... http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/1731175/ A digital shot from the same spot may look like this: http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=25560233&size=o&context=set-562751 Even though the latter is a stitched panorama, I belive the film shot have cost me at least twice as much time - and money, BTW. Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 4. december 2005 04:08 Til: [email protected] Emne: Re: "Photo scanner" vs real film scanner? If you know more about what you are doing than that minimum wage dweeb, then your scans are going to be better. Most digital images whether scanned or direct do not look exactly like an optical image. Strangely most people think the digital images are better. But those of us who do not seem to have a lot more experience than most of those who do. It may simply be a matter of what you are used to. However the convenience of digital can not be beat for color work. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" ----------------------------------- Toralf Lund wrote: > > I think I've seen it in many cheap scans I've got from labs. Or at > least, the files seem to have far too much grain-like noise compared > to the actual granularity of the film, if you know what I mean. I > guess the real question is whether the flatbeds (or even dedicated > film scanners) would be much better in this respect. > > And yes, the mileage does vary - quite possibly based on film type. >
